← All Phrases

“actual payment basis”

DisallowancesSection 43BSection 43B250 judgments

The decision most relied on for actual payment basis is CIT v. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508), cited in 1,629 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on actual payment basis

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 1 · 1959 · Supreme Court
341
citing judgments

When following the mercantile system of accounting, provisions for liabilities made on a scientific and rational basis are allowable as deductions, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 616 · 2013 · High Court
304
citing judgments

No disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B for delayed payment of employee's contributions to ESI or PF if these amounts are deposited by the assessee on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). This aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions for allowability.

Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rai Agro Industries Ltd.
334 ITR 122 · 2011 · High Court
163
citing judgments

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act applies to both employer and employee contributions to welfare funds, allowing deductions for these contributions only upon actual payment.

Union of India v. Exide Industries
425 ITR 1 · 2020 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

The provision for leave encashment is allowable as a deduction only on an actual payment basis under Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 43B(f).

CIT v. M/s Mark Auto Industries Ltd.
358 ITR 43 · 2013 · High Court
105
citing judgments

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that employees' contributions to provident fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI), deposited after the due date under the respective special Acts but before the due date for filing the income tax return, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act.

Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal v. Tax Recovery Officer
47 Taxmann.com 293 · 2014 · ITAT
46
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely on the basis of loose papers or notings found during a search in the premises of a third party, especially when there is no corroborative evidence to suggest that the assessee actually received the amounts or made payments.

CIT v. KP Varghese
131 ITR 574 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made on the basis of deeming fiction without evidence that the assessee actually paid more than what was declared in the registered deed. The Assessing Officer bears the burden of proving the assessee's liability to tax.

Judgments citing actual payment basis

Keventer Agro Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 776/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 32Section 43B

Court on SLP in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI when the assessee sought relief of Rs.27,08,690/- only on actual payment basis which was included in the said deduction of Rs.56,83,680/- and not claimed separately in the ROI.” 2.1. The assessee, vide ground

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4326/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

valuing the closing stock. This should have been debited to the Profit & Loss Account on accrual basis. As it was deductible on actual payment basis, the said amount not paid to the government account should have been added to arrive at the total income of the assessee. Omission

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4325/MUM/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

valuing the closing stock. This should have been debited to the Profit & Loss Account on accrual basis. As it was deductible on actual payment basis, the said amount not paid to the government account should have been added to arrive at the total income of the assessee. Omission

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4235/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

valuing the closing stock. This should have been debited to the Profit & Loss Account on accrual basis. As it was deductible on actual payment basis, the said amount not paid to the government account should have been added to arrive at the total income of the assessee. Omission

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 4234/MUM/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2024AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel and Charu MittalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 43BSection 80Section 80H

valuing the closing stock. This should have been debited to the Profit & Loss Account on accrual basis. As it was deductible on actual payment basis, the said amount not paid to the government account should have been added to arrive at the total income of the assessee. Omission

V Sathyamoorthy&Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1023/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

seen that the assessee has reversed provision of wages payable for Rs.62.75 Lacs in FY 2015-16 and claimed the same on actual payment basis in FY 2016-17. The same is very much clear from the above reconciliation. Since the provision as wrongly claimed in return of income filed ... that the assessee has reversed provision of Salaries payable for Rs.14.84 Lacs during FY 2015-16 and claimed deduction of the same on actual payment basis. Therefore, the disallowance, to that extent, could not be upheld. The balance provision of Rs.14.69 Lacs has been made

V Sathyamoorthy&Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1022/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1022/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

seen that the assessee has reversed provision of wages payable for Rs.62.75 Lacs in FY 2015-16 and claimed the same on actual payment basis in FY 2016-17. The same is very much clear from the above reconciliation. Since the provision as wrongly claimed in return of income filed ... that the assessee has reversed provision of Salaries payable for Rs.14.84 Lacs during FY 2015-16 and claimed deduction of the same on actual payment basis. Therefore, the disallowance, to that extent, could not be upheld. The balance provision of Rs.14.69 Lacs has been made

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Co. Circle - II (3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 677/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

zero percent listed and traded bonds on the ground that it is not ascertained or crystalized and the same should be allowed on actual payment basis 4.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that discount on the zero coupon bonds represented interest cost 4.3 The learned

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 878/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

zero percent listed and traded bonds on the ground that it is not ascertained or crystalized and the same should be allowed on actual payment basis 4.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that discount on the zero coupon bonds represented interest cost 4.3 The learned

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

ITA 877/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11 Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax, Development Finance Company Circle-Ii(3), Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.878/Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Development Finance Company Vs. Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : Shri Farookh V. Irani, Advocate : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

zero percent listed and traded bonds on the ground that it is not ascertained or crystalized and the same should be allowed on actual payment basis 4.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that discount on the zero coupon bonds represented interest cost 4.3 The learned

V Sathyamoorthy&Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1021/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1021/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

ledger extracts. The said amount was claimed as provision in original return of income. Therefore, the same ought to have been allowed on actual payment basis during this year. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal arguments of the assessee and held that Ld. AO could make regular addition ... seen that the assessee has reversed provision of wages payable for Rs.62.75 Lacs in FY 2015-16 and claimed the same on actual payment basis in FY 2016-17. The same is very much clear from the above reconciliation. Since the provision as wrongly claimed in return of income filed

Virendra Singh Saini, Haryana vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1483/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return.’ The main provision of section 43B, providing for the deduction only on actual payment basis, has been relaxed by the proviso so as to enable the deduction even if the payment is made before the due date of furnishing ... such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return.’ The main provision of section 43B, providing for the deduction only on actual payment basis, has been relaxed by the proviso so as to enable the deduction even if the payment is made before the due date of furnishing

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad vs. Union Bank of India, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1230/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Payment towards leave encashment is deductible on actual payment basis in terms of 43B(f) of the Act, and further, contribution to any fund maintained by the assessee with 3rd service providers like

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissisoner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1018/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Payment towards leave encashment is deductible on actual payment basis in terms of 43B(f) of the Act, and further, contribution to any fund maintained by the assessee with 3rd service providers like

Kolkata Police Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-35, Kolkata

ITA 142/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

addition of gratuity paid for Rs.2616795 and leave salary paid for Rs. 1885400/- is unjustified and unsustainable since the same is allowable on actual payment basis under Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the fact that the provision made towards the same had already been added

Mansa Builders and Developers, Bhopal vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5(3), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 433/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Mansa Builders & Income-Tax Officer, Developers, 5(3), 1, Bhopal C/O Radha Krishna बनाम/ Traders, Vs. Bhanpur Square, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Aatfm5948C Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Adv. & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 43B

duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called)' used in Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and allowable only on actual payment basis." 3. The respondent assessee engaged in the business of real estate consultancy/ agency and property management services. During the course of the assessment proceedings ... duty, cess or fee (by whatever name called)’ used in Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and allowable only on an actual payment basis.” Answering the aforesaid question, it was, inter alia, observed by the Hon’ble High Court that now when the assessee admittedly had not claimed

Ritika Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Vcentral Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2013-14

For Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43B

basis of stay granted by the High Court, ought to have allowed the deduction for service tax in the year under consideration on actual payment basis. 6.10.2 This ground of appeal does not arise from the order of Assessing Officer. In view of detailed reasons given in Ground

M/S Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT (Cen.)-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 355/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return.’ The main provision of section 43B, providing for the deduction only on actual payment basis, has been relaxed by the proviso so as to enable the deduction even if the payment is made before the due date of furnishing

Keventer Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

ITA 396/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 37(1)Section 43B

Court on SLP in the case of Excide Industries Ltd. vs. UOI when the assessee sought relief of Rs.47,90,224/- only on actual payment basis which was included in the said deduction of Rs.86,20,351/- and not claimed separately in the ROI. 2. That

Crystal Corp Protection Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7021/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 43B

Authority sustained the disallowance on the reasoning that in terms of section 43B(f), deduction on account of leave encashment is allowable on actual payment basis and not on accrual basis. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. Before us, learned counsel appearing ... Supreme Court in Union of India & ors. vs. Exide Industries Limited & Anr. (supra). Therefore, disputed deduction can only be allowed on actual payment basis. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the date of actual payment of leave encashment and allow deduction in the assessment year wherein such payment